By Ann Rostow –
Atta Turk
A draft of a recent set of Turkish legal reforms known as the 11th Judicial Package was leaked to the press, and, much to our distress, it adds all kinds of nasty difficulties to the already tough lives of gay and trans Turks, as well as Turkish citizens in general. Human Rights Watch called it “one of the most alarming rollbacks of human rights in decades.”
Mr. Erdogan has never been sympathetic to our community, but he seems to have shifted into a new gear. Anyone holding a same-sex marriage ceremony is subject to four years in prison. Same-sex marriage is already illegal in Turkey, so any such ceremonies would be expressions of commitment, symbolic parties if you will, that would nonetheless be subject to horrific punishment. As for anyone who “engages in attitudes or behaviors contrary to biological sex and general morality,” or “who openly encourages, praises, or promotes such attitudes or behaviors,” they face up to three years in prison. Jail time is also possible for organizations and media who help the GLBT community or report favorable on GLBT issues. Transgender health care will be banned before the age of 25.
The press release from Human Rights Watch goes on and on, but you get the picture. In an annoying detail, Human Rights Watch insists on calling Turkey “Türkiye.” This, of course, is the Turkish spelling of Turkey, much as everyone started saying “Keeve” instead of Kiev back in the day because that’s how the citizens of Kiev say the name of their city. But, so what? We don’t call Paris “Paree” and other countries don’t call us “The United States,” because we all use different languages!
This is the sort of mindless political correctness that cost Democrats the hearts and minds of a lot of centrist voters, and I say mindless because it’s not a show of respect to use local pronunciations when you are sitting on your couch in the American heartland. It’s just going along with something you heard or read without thinking. It’s also a little pretentious.
Gays Just Wanna Have Fun
While we’re in Eastern Europe, do you recall that Poland declared a bunch of districts no-gay areas, symbolic expressions of hostility towards GLBT tourists and citizens? Between 2019 and 2020, about a hundred little regions hopped on the antigay bandwagon, issuing pointless decrees praising family values and sending mean-spirited thoughts towards our charming cohort. Eventually, European Rules and Regulations forced these Polish enclaves to retreat from their gay bashing slogans, and, recently, Poland was elevated from worst country in the EU for GLBT people to second worst, after Romania. Poland is also poised to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the country’s anti-discrimination code. (As for the aforementioned Turkey, the country has been in hot and cold talks to join the EU for decades. Earlier this year, the European Parliament froze consideration due to Turkey’s continued “democratic backsliding.” Thanks, Wikipedia.)
If I may meander back to my original point about Poland, I was just reading about a study that looked at relocations and job hunts in those anti-gay zones from 2016 to 2021. An economist from Oxford and a professor of economics and business from Vienna determined that there was a migration out of the hostile areas to other parts of Poland or even other countries.
Remember that Poland’s no-gay zones carried no legal weight and were simply symbolic expressions of disapproval, so one might think that they would not have much of an impact on residents. But it makes perfect sense to me that gay people and their loved ones would lean towards a change in venue.
And not just the gays and their folks. Do you remember Richard Florida? About twenty years ago, he was the sociologist who saw a correlation between gay friendly cities and economic growth. I used to write that he noticed a colleague who had mapped GLBT tolerance around the country and saw that the guy’s map matched his own map of economic growth rates. Looking back, I’m not sure that story is true, but it was a nice idea.
What Florida posited was that cities with a combination of talent, tolerance, and technology fostered a “creative class” that compounded economic growth. Tolerance in this context included, not just tolerance for GLBT people, but for artists, crazy ideas, performances, and so forth. Austin used to be home to a much-loved cross-dressing man named Leslie who wandered around main parts of town wearing nothing but a renaissance mask or some other Keep Austin Weird outfit. In 2023, Austin had the best economy of the top 50 metro areas in the U.S. for the previous five years.
The theory is based on the notion that creative productive people seek out environments where individuals are free to be themselves and celebrated for artistic vision, and, well, you know—having fun. You can see why Poland’s creative class chose to find another place to live once their townships decided to flaunt the fact that they disliked whole categories of human beings. You can see why draconian bans on transgender and gay people tend to depress every citizen with a wild heart and a sense of possibility.
Do We Have a Choice?
There is a lengthy report written by a trio of Democratic strategists called Deciding to Win, which offers a blueprint for getting back on track. By lengthy, I mean 59 pages, just a little too long to read in its entirety right this minute. Check it out on Politico.
I feel as if I mostly agree with the authors: Simon Bazelon, Lauren Harper Pope, and Liam Kerr. It’s about time Democrats started campaigning on their own vision rather than a listicle of all the horrible things Trump has done and may continue doing. That vision, in turn, should center on improving the lives of the electorate, lowering costs, helping with child care, fixing health insurance, and so forth. GLBT rights is my top priority, but there’s no reason the
majority of Americans would put it that high, and there’s no reason a candidate should put our issues on center stage. Here are the five main recommendations before we continue:
First, “focus our policy agenda and our messaging on an economic program centered on lowering costs, growing the economy, creating jobs, and expanding the social safety net.”
Second, “advocate for popular economic policies (e.g., expanding prescription drug price negotiation, making the wealthy pay their fair share in taxes, raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour) rather than unpopular economic policies (e.g., student loan forgiveness, electric vehicle subsidies, Medicare for All).”
Third, “convince voters that we share their priorities by focusing more on issues voters do not think our party prioritizes highly enough (the economy, the cost of living, healthcare, border security, public safety), and focusing less on issues voters think we place too much emphasis on (climate change, democracy, abortion, identity and cultural issues).”
Fourth, “moderate our positions where our agenda is unpopular, including on issues like immigration, public safety, energy production, and some identity and cultural issues.”
Fifth, “embrace a substantive and rhetorical critique of the outsized political and economic influence of lobbyists, corporations, and the ultra-wealthy, while keeping two considerations in mind: First, voters’ frustrations with the status quo are not the same as a desire for socialism. And second, criticizing the status quo is a complement to advocating for popular policies on the issues that matter most to the American people, not a substitute.”
I have two complaints. The fifth suggestion, which sounds like back the billionaires to me, just sounds like attacking the Trump contingent again. Attacking the status quo is not a winning strategy, as the authors seem to recognize.
And my other complaint is just the aura of “can we just stop with the gays?” Yes, as I just said, the gays don’t have to be front and center. But Democrats must speak up when we are deeply harmed, when, for example, transgender troops who have offered their lives to their country are summarily dismissed despite years of service and excellent records. And Democrats must remain steadfast in support of our community, much as they support other minorities and immigrants. Democrats can’t give up their souls to win, but the good ones won’t have to.
As Maine Goes …
So, speaking of Democratic politics, what do you think of the primary race in Maine? We have a young gay guy who has been Katie Porter’s Chief of Staff. We have an oyster fisherman and Marine combat veteran who is apparently a brilliant campaigner, but who once used antigay language describing wartime life and who did not realize his post-service skull tattoo was a Nazi image. Finally, we have Janet Mills, the term-limited governor who stood toe to toe with Trump while refusing to kick trans girls off Maine’s sports teams. I love her. But she’s 77, and I would like to see our elders start to retire. (I think it’s Eleanor Holmes Norton who won’t rule out another run for DC’s congress seat. She’s 88 and reportedly not all there.)
I read an interesting article about the oyster man written by Michelle Goldberg in The New York Times. Goldberg was ready to fold on Graham Platner, but she changed her mind after following Platner’s campaign around the state. What the writers of Deciding to Win left out was that Democrats are also hungry for a new look. Platner is in his 40s now and has that man’s man look that makes the MAGA ladies melt and the MAGA men suck in their guts. His antigay rhetoric is not a good look, but it seems overwhelmed by the amount of time and energy he’s spend fighting for civil rights and democracy. His campaign events are drawing the larger crowds since Obama came to the lobster state. It will be interesting to watch.
Oh, and Katie Porter, who has been among the leaders of the race to be the Democratic nominee for California governor, is apparently a real witch who yells at staffers and was quite rude to a news reporter who was asking all the candidates about redistricting. That means our gay Maine candidate, Jordon Wood, is either very cool or a real pushover. As a rule, I don’t support people who are cruel to their staff or easily angered.
Over ICE
Finally, I loved a video by Josh Sorbe, a gay Senate staffer who was in the gym working out when he encountered an article about how 30 percent of ICE recruits can’t pass the relatively easy physical test. The dumbed down requirement calls for 15 push-ups, 32 sit-ups, and a mile and a half run. The time limit of 14 minutes is either for the whole test or the running part; it’s not clear.
At any rate, Josh decided to give it a whirl and did the entire thing in 12 minutes, perhaps starting a whole new contest for fit liberals to show up the lumbering meatheads who can’t manage a few exercises. Oh, and many of the would-be agents could not pass a written test—an open book written test.
When will it end?
GLBT Fortnight in Review
Published on November 6, 2025
Recent Comments